Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context with the consent rule 'nothing is sent without a yes' and the fact that the content is a ready-to-read summary rather than raw data. That consent guarantee is not derivable from the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, but the first sentence largely restates the tool name and title ('Job Spotter. What Job Spotter can do, for job seekers and employers'), spending words without adding information. The closing 'summary is in `say`' is cryptic and unresolved given no `say` parameter exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema overview tool with annotations already declaring safety, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (a summary of capabilities, rules, and tool routing). However, it never states the expected agent behavior (use this to orient before selecting a sibling) and the undefined `say` reference leaves a loose end.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline is 4. The stray reference to `say` is not a declared parameter and adds minor ambiguity rather than useful parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (Job Spotter itself) and states its function: capabilities, rules, and which tool does what. That 'which tool does what' clause is what separates it from the ~25 jobspotter_* action siblings, so an agent can recognize it as the orientation/routing entry point. It falls short of 5 only because 'What Job Spotter can do' is broad phrasing rather than a single precise verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'which tool does what' implies this is the discovery/routing call to make before picking a sibling, but the description never says 'call this first' or names when not to use it. It also references a summary 'in `say`' without explaining what that means, so the usage path is only implied, not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.